Stephen King's The Shining

[matthew2001]

I purchase volume one of some of King's work with the Shining included, and already something doesn't make sense. If King's complaint about the movie was that Jack went too crazy in Krubrick's version, then what was all of his thinking in his mind. Most of it was "This prick, he's a prick" when he had the interview with Ullman. All the other elements seemed there as well, the constant smiling as well as doging the personal issues with his family.

If you are a person down on your luck, I don't see how you can come across as being down without looking somewhat crazy. Some folks take novel to film way too seriously.

[Jamesaritchie]

I purchase volume one of some of King's work with the Shining included, and already something doesn't make sense. If King's complaint about the movie was that Jack went too crazy in Krubrick's version, then what was all of his thinking in his mind. Most of it was "This prick, he's a prick" when he had the interview with Ullman. All the other elements seemed there as well, the constant smiling as well as doging the personal issues with his family.

If you are a person down on your luck, I don't see how you can come across as being down without looking somewhat crazy. Some folks take novel to film way too seriously.

Well, in this case, I think King was right. Great novel, mediocre movie. And if being down makes you look crazy, then I've been crazy many a time, and so have my friends. We still didn't act like Jack. I don't know whether the blame lies with Krubrick or Nicholson, or just with the fact that movies have to condense everything in a novel, but I think the character was definitely way over the top in the movie version.

[Perks]

Great novel, mediocre movie.

That's almost painful to read. I say great novel, great film - just practically two different animals.

[tiny]

That's almost painful to read. I say great novel, great film - just practically two different animals.

I agree. I loved the book. And I love the movie (I watch it every Christmas, ask Rob, he seems to know why). But the two are very different.

[matthew2001]

Well, in this case, I think King was right. Great novel, mediocre movie. And if being down makes you look crazy, then I've been crazy many a time, and so have my friends. We still didn't act like Jack.

Regardless, King wasted his time trying to remake that novel into television. Steven Weber isn't exactly a better choice than Nicholson either, and why do we need all the extra stuff in the novel anyhow? Most of us aren't going to sit through a three hour long movie just to please the ego of a few fans.

Sorry, I just don't get the "novel must be correctly adapted attiude". Even if I were to make a novel and get it adapted, there's really not much you can do once it goes to other folks.

[Jamesaritchie]

Regardless, King wasted his time trying to remake that novel into television. Steven Weber isn't exactly a better choice than Nicholson either, and why do we need all the extra stuff in the novel anyhow? Most of us aren't going to sit through a three hour long movie just to please the ego of a few fans.

Sorry, I just don't get the "novel must be correctly adapted attiude". Even if I were to make a novel and get it adapted, there's really not much you can do once it goes to other folks.

How about the ego of several million fans? When you have to ask why you need all the stuff in a novel, you don't understand novels or movies.

But it isn;t about putting all the "stuff" in, it's about getting the stuff you do put in right, and Hollywood stinks at this.

[Jamesaritchie]

That's almost painful to read. I say great novel, great film - just practically two different animals.

Were I being completely honest I would have said great novel, lousy film. I think I made it about halfway through the film before wishing I had that part of my life back. I usually love Jack Nicholson, but he was so over the top in The Shining that I though he was in a comedy and playing it for laughs.

I like several King movies, but that one is just bad.

[Perks]

You are a very bad man, James. ;)

[arrowqueen]

I thought the second version was much better than the first.

Nicholson's Jack Torrance was as mad as a bagful of ferrets from the word 'go'. Would you have gone off to the Overlook with him? I bloody wouldn't.

[MacAllister]

Heh--AQ, I don't think I'd have gone across the street with him.

Even so, I did like the movie. I just don't think of it as the same story at all as the novel.

[blisswriter]

I loved the book and the Kubrick film version wasn't too bad. I liked it much better than some of the other film versions of King novels. Like Needful Things, for instance. I thought the movie version wasn't dark enough.

I wasn't aware that there was a version on film other than Kubrick's. I'd love to see it though, to be able to compare how Jack was acted.

[vipersmile]

actually being an avid King reader, and a horror author myself, I do a lot of research and one of the pivital reasons the film was remade, even more so than the fact an ax was never implimented, ( rather a roque mallet) was the fact KING was NOT looking for a character that already looked insane. Jack was so good at this he became " Over the top" KING mentions his initial guise for Torrance's role was John Voight. He wanted a charachter you would never guess up front being able to snap and lose control.

Nicholson looks crazy doing crossword puzzles.

Also, the movie was remade, because many crucial elements were left out of the film. Tony was not a finger, the hedge animals were not in the Kubrick version but they were in the remake. They played a crucial role in the book. Same thing with the roque mallet. I happen to believe Weber's Torrance was done quite nicely, and in fact, looked very effective by the end of the movie.

Even the remake left out crucial elements. Near the end of the shining in the book, Jack smashes his own face with the mallet several times, we never see this, however, I can understand why.

Originally, and not many people know this, the remake of THE SHINING had a different guy playing TORNACE.

If you watch the audio commentary of Storm of The century KING mentions the fellow who plays the "constable" in STORM was picked to play JACK, and Steve Weber was picked for STORM. Both of them swapped roles.

Eric ENck-

[Liam Jackson]

Some of the better novels just don't adapt well to film. On the other hand, some weak novels are turned into decent flicks.

With regard to The Shining, I had trouble holding in the the chuckles while Jack hammed it up with the ax. My brother, on the other hand, had a death gripe on his wife's arm during the "Herrrre's Johnny!" scene.

By the same token, the novel Relic was just a decent read in my opinion, but the movie gave me a rare shiver. My wife thought the movie was written as a dark comedy. I guess it's all in how the reader/viewer is hardwired.

[LloydBrown]

By the same token, the novel Relic was just a decent read in my opinion, but the movie gave me a rare shiver. My wife thought the movie was written as a dark comedy. I guess it's all in how the reader/viewer is hardwired.

I thought the book had a lot more tension than the movie. In fact, I wrote (and sold) a Dungeons &Dragons scenario inspired by it.

[Liam Jackson]

My wife totally agrees with you, Lloyd. Another prime example of the hardwire thing. More often than not, she and I agree on a Crichton movie or novel. Relic was an odd exception.

[Rabe]

Sorry, I just don't get the "novel must be correctly adapted attiude". Even if I were to make a novel and get it adapted, there's really not much you can do once it goes to other folks.

There is a rather large difference between 'correctly adapted' and 'faithfully adapted'. One that King normally doesn't seem to care about. How else do you explain the film versions of "The Running Man" (which, incidentally, got at least two elements correct...the names of the major characters and that it was based around a game show) and "The Lawnmower Man" which was so far removed from the short story of the same name it's laughable to even think of one coming from the other.

Then you have books to films such as the recent Inklings adaptations "Lord of the Rings" and "Chronicles of Narnia" which may not have included *everything* from the books but have got the gist and the story of it right. Then you have some books to films that are in between, such as the Harry Potter series.

The problem is that you go off and you buy these novels hoping to make a great film, and when you buy a King novel, you're hoping to drag in about half of the fan base to the movie. Except, the fan base is so jaded by King's wanton disregard of what happens to his stories once the rights are sold (and here I'll also include such lameduck adaptations as "It" and "Dreamcatcher" to "The Shining") that it becames damned near impossible to take any adaptation of his work seriously as an adaptation. Then you further injure the fanbase by taking a movie that is good by itself (such as "Misery" and "Dolores Claiborne") as well as working well as a novel and then cheapening them to get buzz for a latest 'movie' release such as the holy crapfest that is "Dreamcatcher" (the movie).

To think about really good adaptations of books to film (and I worry about the upcoming "Magic Kingdom for Sale-Sold" film, since the filmmakers have seen fit to give Ben Holiday two children for the movie...which is just giving me fits) isn't about *correctly* adapting them, but to be true and faithful to the story as originally told. Of which many of King's movies are not.

Actually, I can't think of many of his movies that *are* faithful wherein he has not written the screenplay for it.

Rabe...

[Jamesaritchie]

There is a rather large difference between 'correctly adapted' and 'faithfully adapted'. One that King normally doesn't seem to care about. How else do you explain the film versions of "The Running Man" (which, incidentally, got at least two elements correct...the names of the major characters and that it was based around a game show) and "The Lawnmower Man" which was so far removed from the short story of the same name it's laughable to even think of one coming from the other.

Then you have books to films such as the recent Inklings adaptations "Lord of the Rings" and "Chronicles of Narnia" which may not have included *everything* from the books but have got the gist and the story of it right. Then you have some books to films that are in between, such as the Harry Potter series.

The problem is that you go off and you buy these novels hoping to make a great film, and when you buy a King novel, you're hoping to drag in about half of the fan base to the movie. Except, the fan base is so jaded by King's wanton disregard of what happens to his stories once the rights are sold (and here I'll also include such lameduck adaptations as "It" and "Dreamcatcher" to "The Shining") that it becames damned near impossible to take any adaptation of his work seriously as an adaptation. Then you further injure the fanbase by taking a movie that is good by itself (such as "Misery" and "Dolores Claiborne") as well as working well as a novel and then cheapening them to get buzz for a latest 'movie' release such as the holy crapfest that is "Dreamcatcher" (the movie).

To think about really good adaptations of books to film (and I worry about the upcoming "Magic Kingdom for Sale-Sold" film, since the filmmakers have seen fit to give Ben Holiday two children for the movie...which is just giving me fits) isn't about *correctly* adapting them, but to be true and faithful to the story as originally told. Of which many of King's movies are not.

Actually, I can't think of many of his movies that *are* faithful wherein he has not written the screenplay for it.

Rabe...

You're giving writers way, way too much power. It isn't that King doesn't care about the adaptations, it's that pretty much no writer in history has any control over them. Even when the writer writes the script, truly lousy movies are often the result. King does not have a wanton disregard for what happens to his books. That's silliness.

All a writer can really do is cross his fingers and hope that Hollywood does a good job. That's it. Sometimes Hollywood gets it right, most often they get it wrong, but there's usually nothing at all teh writer can do about it.

King wrote the books, and if those are worth reading he's done all any writer can be asked to do. Movies are not his business, not his concern, and nearly always completely out of his control.

But some Stephen King work has been adapted very well. "Misery" was very well done. So was "Deloris Claiborne." So was "The Green Mile." So was "The Shawshank Redemption." So was "Stand By Me." Excellent movies all, in every way.

And the mini-series of "It" was also very well done.

But however good or bad a movie is, you can't blame the writer. Writers write books, and if they're extremely lucky those books are turned into great movies. But luck is pretty much all it is. The writer's job is to write books, and that's all a writer's job is.

By and large, King has had some very good luck with movies. Some have been stinkers, but some have been very, very good.

[Jamesaritchie]

I loved the book and the Kubrick film version wasn't too bad. I liked it much better than some of the other film versions of King novels. Like Needful Things, for instance. I thought the movie version wasn't dark enough.

I wasn't aware that there was a version on film other than Kubrick's. I'd love to see it though, to be able to compare how Jack was acted.

I enjoyed the movie version of "Needful Things." Anything with Max Von Sydow, Ed Harris, and Bonnie Bedelia gets my approval. Some darkness, however, might have improved the movie. But I sure liked it much better than "The Shining."

[nandu]

I also loved the book and didn't like the movie that much, especially since it left out many of the most creepy scenes, such as the topiary animals and the fire hose in the hotel corridor. It seems to me that in the book, The Overlook was a main character, but in the movie, the whole thing was treated as though it was a projection of Jack's madness. In fact, Kubrick tried to transcend the book: the movie trying to balance itself on the knife edge between fantasy and reality. As a fan of the book, the movie failed for me.

That said, I think this is a problem with most adaptations: the fans of the book go to the movie expecting the same experience they had from the book, which is impossible. We have to accept the fact that the only way to adapt a book is for the director to internalise it, and recreate it fresh for the screen. We have to see the movie as a different work of art.

However, Roman Polanski achieved the impossible when he produced a movie version of "Rosemary's Baby" which follows the book page by page, and is as terrifying if not more.

[BlackCrowesChick]

I loved all three - the book, the Kubrick film, and the ABC miniseries. I don't see Kubrick's version as an adaptation of the book at all, though; it wasn't. It didn't stick to the book, but it became great on its own, as something different. All the little details were what I loved most about that film. The score was amazing. I think its the scariest one ever written. It alone can give me the chills. And the camera angles, the way the camera moved...think the scene where Jack is swinging the ax into the door. The camera is sped up and follows the ax with each blow it makes on the door. Also, the scene where Danny is riding his bike around the hotel is another example of the great camera work. Its kept low to the ground and its fast, just like you're on the bike with him.

I saw the film before I read the book. Maybe if it'd been the other way around, I wouldn't like it as well, but as I said, I'm not looking at it as an adaptation of Stephen King's book, but as a movie on its own.

I thought the book was great. Its one of my favorites. Nandu, I agree about the topiary animals. They were one of the scariest aspects of the book. I heard that when Kubrick's film was made, there wasn't the technology to make them, so he made a maze instead of them.

As for the miniseries, (which I also saw before I read the book), I liked it. It was a good adaptation of the book because Stephen produced it himself. It was just like the book, leaving out a few scenes, I presume because of length of time. Have any of you seen the DVD of the miniseries? I know it has deleted scenes on it, and I wondered what they were. Maybe the missing scenes from the book I'm thinking of are on it. Also, I thought the miniseries was more touching, more emotional than Kubrick's. That didn't have much emotion to it, but the miniseries did, a lot.

[nandu]

BlackCrowesChick,

I couldn't stay alone in our local park after dark without feeling a shiver, for days after reading the novel. It had a lot of topiary animals. I always used to watch my back while I was there ;) !

[MacAllister]

That's so weird. The topiary animals fell totally flat, for me.

[nandu]

That's so weird. The topiary animals fell totally flat, for me.

Nothing weird about it. Different things work for different people. I find horror to be extremely subjective.

[BlackCrowesChick]

BlackCrowesChick,

I couldn't stay alone in our local park after dark without feeling a shiver, for days after reading the novel. It had a lot of topiary animals. I always used to watch my back while I was there http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif !

Hehe, I don't blame you! I've never seen any topiary animals in real life, but I probably would've been a little freaked out by them if I had seen them after I read the novel.

Some of what I found scary was near the end of the book, when Halloran came back to the Overlook, it was kind of scary because the animals were trying to kill him. Then, at the very end, before he was going to leave, the hotel was starting to get in his head and trying to make him go in a shed to get a mallet, I think, to kill Wendy and Danny with. It only happened for a second, but it was unexpected. That wasn't in either film version because it was just following his thoughts, which they couldn't show. That's part of what makes books scarier than movies - you know what the characters are thinking.

[TwentyFour]

I find the second movie to be very close to the book, I loved the book and could not read it alone or at night. I believe the first movie missed the whole point of the story. The man was going crazy from isolation and his addictions, the hotel demons helped him along, and the boy was just an odd little kid. I actually feel this book was one of King's best novels. The book terrorified me to no end! I was freaked out by it! Steven Weber was a favorite actor of mine since "Wings" and I only seen him in one horror flick where he played the killer (with Helen Hunt) and he played this character out in a true sense.

[ChaosTitan]

If you watch the audio commentary of Storm of The century KING mentions the fellow who plays the "constable" in STORM was picked to play JACK, and Steve Weber was picked for STORM. Both of them swapped roles.

Eric ENck-

The cast of "Wings" strikes again! I can see Weber in SotC, but I can't see Tim Daly doing TS. But that's just me. :D

[nandu]

I think that a majority of creepy horror stories entails things that creep upon you. The topiary animals only moved while the eyes of the person they were stalking was taken away. I believe this is part of a race memory: while we were all cave-people, the predators that crept upon you from behind were the most dangerous ones.

[virtue_summer]

I really enjoyed the miniseries of The Shining. You got a better feel that the hotel was using Jack (who did start off vulnerable, but not crazy) and of the importance of Jack's alcohol addiction. Seriously, in the first movie I was spooked and scared for Jack's family, but I think in the second I cared more about Jack. With the novel, I certainly cared about Jack.

[MyFirstMystery]

I loved the book and thought the movie was just OK. I usually feel that way about movie adaptations though.

I agree about the topiary animals. They scared the bejeezus out of me. To this day whenever I stay at a creepy old hotel I'm reminded of the Overlook. I love being a little creeped out though, so it's fun.

MFM

[LadyArmand]

When I first saw the Shining I thought it was Jack doing basically the same character he did in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. To me it was Jack being Jack, which he tends to do in a lot of his films and he gets away with it because he’s a great actor. But in the novel it was a progression, he slowly spiraled into insanity. Jack was crazy from the beginning of the film. I couldn’t for the life of me understand why anyone would go and take their child with them, to a deserted snow lodge with this nut and think everything was going to be okay.

[Jackie Coupe]

The Shining - one of the earliest King novels I read. Atmospheric. Errie. I loved it beginning to end. I read Kings work now, 'Cell', 'From a Buick 8', 'Hearts in Atlantis' and they don't hold a candle to The Shining and the untinctured horror and suspense it created.

I did enjoy the movie. I believe it got cut to an extent but you can get the uncut version now. The TV series/movie didn't come close, it felt watered down, odd when you consider it had a lot more of the 'story' involved but thats how it felt.

One of his all-time best and at this stage will probably remain that way.